Managing expectations and the Green Party of Canada's 'message'.
Re-posted from 'Not an Official Green Party Canada Site'
There has been a lot of interest and discussion within, (and without) Green Party ranks regarding the big question: "Where will Elizabeth May be running in the next election?" There have been some pretty open discussions about the relative merits, and electability in given riding's, in a kind of a guessing game based on public utterances by Elizabeth, and whatever drip-pets of information come from informal internal sources. This discussion is healthy, and without question serves a useful purpose in drawing out strategic analysis of varying quality from people both within, and without the decision making loop.
I am afraid that most of us that I am aware of, (With the notable exception of Bill Hulett, a leading light and long time organiser in the Guelph EDA), have more or less ignored the consequences of talking it up so heavily. Cast your mind back to the 2004 election, with tons of hype by Jim Harris, and GPC hacks that Greens were poised to elect MP's all over the place. Remember the public, and media reaction to the election outcome? "Greens fail to elect MP" is a reasonably representative headline for you to think about. Again, in 2005-6, Bruce Grey Owen Sound was trumpeted as the 'breakthrough riding', with predictable results when the election was said and done. London North Centre by-election? Same deal, with the added salacious fact that the shiny new media star had failed to win, even in a by-election. Central Nova? There was a broad reaction that despite the presence of Elizabeth in the debate, the Green Party still came nowhere near.
Over the past few weeks, Elizabeth May has been giving interviews charging that the Green Party has a single objective, that overrides all other concerns. Electing Elizabeth May to Parliament. If you actually sit back and consider the past consequences of failing to meet very demanding self imposed expectations, this starts to look like a very very risky communications fiasco in the making. The downsides for both Elizabeth May, and the Green Party are pretty big. If Elizabeth fails to get elected in SGI, then the Green Party has failed once again.
I don't believe it will be fatal, or even particularly injurious to the GPC. We will continue to grow our strength in more and more EDA's, because we do have many hundreds of dedicated local activists. Every election pours resources into well organised EDA's, and the teams get broader, and deeper in skills, experience, and raw electoral resources like ID'd voter lists. Nonetheless, it will further damage our credibility, and will provide plenty of ammunition for our political foes. For Elizabeth May, it will be a big drag on her personal profile, and will devalue her once impressive stature as one of the foremost environment advocates in Canada. It is likely, even probable that Elizabeth would lose the leadership of the Party, with the attendant loss of prestige and credibility. Not a very good outcome for somebody whose future livelihood depends on the high profile that she has spent a lifetime building.
I have been as guilty as anybody in inflating the rhetoric surrounding the choice of riding's. It's a choice that needed to be made, and many people wanted to influence the decision, in a positive direction. I apologise if Elizabeth thought it was needful to quell criticism by acknowledging the Party's wishes in this way. I wonder if it is too late to wind back the clock, and start managing expectations better? What would the best route be to backtrack, and start publicising equally important, but less 'sexy' objectives? Should we set up broader objectives to be given equal, (at least), prominence to the laudible, but very challenging task of electing an MP?
- Matthew Day's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Recent Comments
- Frances Thauberger |
- Trey Capnerhurst |
- John Grogan |
- Rick Mitchell |
- Anne Marie Benoit |
- 1 of 2221
- ››
Comments
Define the message(s) so we know if we are on or off message
We don’t know if we are on or off message with our expectations of winning a seat because we have not beforehand made a purposeful calculation of where we want to set that expectation.
The bigger issue here is that we are not yet very good at messaging period, whether it be surrounding expectations of our performance, our platform or anything else. You ask us to cast our minds back to previous elections. Do that and ask, for example, ‘what was the GPC’s national campaign message(s)’? Or, ‘what has been our messaging leading up to the next campaign?’
We tend to react to all the major news topics of the day without an overarching plan that guides how we should react and what we should react to. This is useful for not being perceived as a one issue party and for establishing a track record of political positions. It is not useful for controlling our own destiny by portraying a consistent image to the electorate that positions us, on purpose and according to a predefined plan and selected objectives, where we want to be on the electorate’s radar screen vis a vis other parties.
What is needed is an exercise in branding. The Green Party brand needs to be professionally defined and consistently messaged through media interviews, press releases, web sites, campaign literature, advertisements, fundraising letters and more. Once there’s a messaging strategy in place we can ask ourselves how a messaging issue such as the relative importance of winning a seat in the next election should be treated in that larger context.
Branding and messaging is interpreted by some as the kind of marketing and manipulation other parties practice that we should avoid because of GPC ‘different way of doing politics’ principles. I don’t see it that way. Branding and messaging can be simply be all about a more effective way of telling your audience whatever it is you want them to understand about you.
When our messaging script is clearly defined we need to develop the mechanics of how to implement and deliver that narrative. Both of these fronts need work and show much untapped promise and potential. For some other discussion on messaging please see one of Mark Kersten’s posts and comments here http://www.greenparty.ca/en/blogs/2619/2009-01-07/messaging-and-design-t...
P.S. Coming together to define the objectives of a messaging strategy has the great side effect of putting everyone on the same page.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Messaging and Branding Versus Vision
Vision==>Branding==>Message
Ard, it is unfortunate that the most descriptive, and broadly understood language, 'branding', and 'messaging' does have negative connotations to Greens. Whatever we want to call it though, yes, it needs to be done well. I think that Vision is the easy bit,(assuming we mean broad strokes of our basic principles). We can use lengthy words, and complete paragraphs when discussing visions. The subsequent discussions on Branding, or how to present the vision in simpler terms is pretty tough to do when Bill's 'Horde' starts rampaging. However, once these big things are resolved, then the messaging is a little easier.
I think that everybody needs to recognise that elections are a different beast. We can use the long words, and serious arguments in between elections, and win critical thinkers over on our policy strengths. On the ground field-work, Identifying supporters, and pulling them into the EDA, etc. On the other hand, during an election, we need to be sound bite peddlars, at least for the 5 weeks, because that's what it takes to communicate something to over 30 million people, in a hurry.
Still, the question is begged, are the high expectations for SGI as big a problem as I think, and if so, can we `take it back`
Babe Ruth's Called Home Run
Matthew, my short answer to your specific question about messaging that we are finally going in totally prepared with our best candidate in our best riding because only now we realize it’s our highest priority to elect an MP ---> totally unnecessary.
There’s nothing to be gained and everything to lose from such talk. Better to collectively say something along the lines that we have been pleased with the progress we have made over the last few years and hope to continue our momentum in the coming years.
These kinds of things are hard to undo but we can always minimize damage starting by not acting like Babe Ruth pointing to centre field in 1932, showing fans where he was going to hit his home run.
Ard Van Leeuwen (Dufferin-Caledon, ON)
The views I express on this blog are purely my own and should not be construed to represent the official position of the Green Party of Canada.
Matthew, what is your vision?
If it's so easy to develop a consensus around a vision, what's your?
Vision
Better quality living, for now and for the future ...
Rob Brooks, Hull-Aylmer
The guiding principles are our Vision
Vision consists of:
Ecological Wisdom
Social Justice
Participatory Democracy
Non-Violence
Sustainability
Respect for Diversity.
We're all members of the same Party here, and these are the underlying principles to which we all subscribe when we join. Maybe some don't subscribe as diligently to every which one, but it is the common position, and serves us as our raison d'etre. How/if we simplify these for 'Brand' and 'Message' development will be a question of emphasis, and interpretation. Jim Harris once cautioned me that achieving consensus within the GPC was like herding cats. That's an understatement in my opinion.
What is participatory democracy? What is non-violence?
The problem with these sorts of lists is that unless there is some sort of internal culture, they tend to mean very different things to different people.
I've found over the years that most people in the Greens do not want to talk about these sorts of things---either because they think any sort of discussion is bad (the majority point of view) or because they have the naive assumption that the meaning of all these terms is pretty much self-evident and any discussion is simply an attempt to confuse people (the loud minority point of view.)
But, as Ross Perot would say, "the devil is in the details". We are supposed to support "participatory democracy", for example, but I see pretty much zero real work to develop it inside the party. (This is why I make such a fuss about things like a lack of a delegate system at conferences, and the absurd disparities in representation for things like provincial/territorial representatives.)
Another problem I have is with "non-violence". Some Greens seem to think that this commits us to a form of radical pacifism. Others seem to think that it doesn't mean much more than that we shouldn't be Nazis out to slaughter others for gain or bigotry.
Bill, The charter of the
Bill,
The charter of the Global Greens is the best definition of the terms within the global green movement. It is a broad set of definitions approved by representatives from around the world in 2001.
http://www.globalgreens.info/globalcharter.html
Ultimately, it is what convinced me it that I was able to go from a non-partisan voter who helped my local candidate because he was a nice person, to an member of the party.
For me, its like a common law set of principles which we can use to draw new policy or refine existing one. They also leave enough flexibility to define a range of responses to a set of issue. IE, if a policy is to change, it is the execution and details rather than the justification.
You are correct, that we can always improve. That you and I are blogging here shows a larger commitment to participatory democracy than other parties. That we had did not arbitrarily block motions (like the NDP just did at their AGM) shows we are much open to participation in forming policy. We certainly can go further, but I think we're doing okay,
I like the global Green definition of non-violence which is determined as external and internal peace and cooperation. Personally, I don't think boxing or UFC counts as violence, since all participants are willing and cooperate. Violence for me is when one individual or organization removes another's right to personal expression. However, the subtext of the global greens recognizes limited intervention, and conflict management, provided it is done under UN auspices.
Definitions from Global Green Charter:
Participatory Democracy
We strive for a democracy in which all citizens have the right to express their views, and are able to directly participate in the environmental, economic, social and political decisions which affect their lives; so that power and responsibility are concentrated in local and regional communities, and devolved only where essential to higher tiers of governance.
Nonviolence
We declare our commitment to nonviolence and strive for a culture of peace and cooperation between states, inside societies and between individuals, as the basis of global security.
We believe that security should not rest mainly on military strength but on cooperation, sound economic and social development, environmental safety, and respect for human rights.
Ecological Wisdom
We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.
We acknowledge the wisdom of the indigenous peoples of the world, as custodians of the land and its resources.
We acknowledge that human society depends on the ecological resources of the planet, and must ensure the integrity of ecosystems and preserve biodiversity and the resilience of life supporting systems.
Social Justice
We assert that the key to social justice is the equitable distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally, to meet basic human needs unconditionally, and to ensure that all citizens have full opportunities for personal and social development.
We declare that there is no social justice without environmental justice, and no environmental justice without social justice.
Sustainability
We recognise the limited scope for the material expansion of human society within the biosphere, and the need to maintain biodiversity through sustainable use of renewable resources and responsible use of non-renewable resources.
We believe that to achieve sustainability, and in order to provide for the needs of present and future generations within the finite resources of the earth, continuing growth in global consumption, population and material inequity must be halted and reversed.
We recognise that sustainability will not be possible as long as poverty persists.
Respect for Diversity
We honour cultural, linguistic, ethnic, sexual, religious and spiritual diversity within the context of individual responsibility toward all beings.
We defend the right of all persons, without discrimination, to an environmentsupportive of their dignity, bodily health, and spiritual well-being
We promote the building of respectful, positive and responsible relationships across lines of division in the spirit of a multi-cultural society.
Global Greens
I've said this before, and I'll say it again and again: It is grossly inappropriate for a canadian party to imply that some larger organization has any controlling authority, direct, indirect, real or perceived. If the GPC, in fact has the right to control its own destiny free from inappropriate external influences, then we should remove all ties and references to the global green movement. It comes across as very "big brother"-like with overtones of fascism.
Now you may be okay with this, but I am not, and many people I know -- who, in full disclosure are not GPC supporters -- think it's offensive. The GPC is free to adopt GG ideals independent of making reference to the GG movement.
Then go away.
Then go away.
No.
No.
I'm serious.
No, I'm serious. Article 3 of our parties constitution defines the basis of our unity is:
"3.1 To enhance the effectiveness of the Global Green Movement in creating a Green Society by providing an evolving social and political structure that embraces and supports Green Values and offers itself as a voice for the broader Green Movement."
If you do not agree with our core values or our party's association with a common movement, then why are you here?
We can debate all day on which policies, messaging, or organization structure is best to promote these values. We can debate whether some policies, even if ultimately correct and following our principles, may distract from our effectiveness.
You may disagree with some of our current policies, as I know some Greens do, however, our core principles and values are that which the party together.
Where's the participatory democracy?
How is it a participatory democracy if a constitutional clause that was passed by a very small number of people a long time ago totally trumps what the membership want right now?
Isn't this something like a form of constitutional fundamentalism?
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
If you can never change the constitution, how is it democratic?
Bram:
The Charter of Global Greens is beyond the ability of the GPC membership to ever change. It was passed at a meeting that held on the other side of the planet with at best two or three Canadians present. The GPC constitution itself was passed at a specific point in time by a specific membership, most of whom had only the shakiest understanding of what was going on. (I should know, the entire process was pretty much my idea.)
People should be very careful about telling others to quit if they don't like the status quo. That smacks a great deal of the old "if you don't like it here in Canada, why don't you go to Russia" argument that people used to use to shut down discussion. No human institution that is still alive has everything figured out. The GPC is far too young an organization to have anything like a mature constitution. If people have concerns about key clauses in the Global Greens Charter, we should be listening to the substance of their arguments, not telling them "Green Party: love it or leave it".
The problem is not the charter..
The problem is not the charter. I do have problems with the charter, but that's not the point I am trying to make right now. We need to be seen as a party for Canadians. It is already an impediment that the GPC maintains an ideological stance on policy items that don't resonate with the public. But it becomes magnified when the GPC is perceived as party that impresses some centralized group of ideologues.
There is no reason that we cannot follow some, most or all of the GG platform, if it is explicitly chosen by party members. Instead, though, we have a situation, where our platform has been prescribed and is never really up for debate. It makes us look like we are not accountable to Canadians, which is our primary duty. Our accountability to the rest of the world, if we choose such a path, only exists if it bestowed to us by Canadians. If you treat it as intrinsic, then you disrespect the electorate.
Constitution can always be changed.
I am not suggesting we change the GG constitution. I suggest we withdraw from it.
I don't know what the GPC constitution has to say on this, but no legal entity in Canada can create an immutable constitution, so a withdrawl is perfectly plausible.
Bill, A good analogy would be
Bill,
A good analogy would be the Canadian Charter or Rights and Freedoms. Like the Canadian Charter, the Green Party has a process for doing constitutional amendments and our members have the ability to determine out core values if they feel that such a decision is warranted.
However, until the constitution is amended, all of our policy's, actions, must conform to those values. If we do not have a basis for unity as a political movement, then what do we have?
A Canadian government cannot pass a law or act in such a way that violates the charter, with the exception with the not withstanding clause, which explicitly forced a government to recognize that its action is unconstitutional, but justified for a brief (time limited) interval.
Our acceptance of the global green charter is based on accepting the common principles (the 6 core values), but does not mean we have to accept word for word, all of the subtext or included policies discussed in Canberra. Our constitution says we agree with the principles of the charter and will use it for us to form our own policies, so while there our policies mentioned in the charter, it is essentially only the statement of values which we are referring to.
However, we can use the global greens policies to help us to understand the spirit of the principles, in the same way that a BC court, while not bound to court decision in Alberta, still could refer to the logic or principles raised to make their decisions.
We are not bound by decisions made outside of Canada, but they do, similar to common law, provide a common understanding to what the spirit of our values are or how they should be interpreted in light of the current global situation.
The second assertion, made earlier, that the Green Party of Canada should not be part of the global greens or refer to others is equally absurd.
At the heart of the Green values is the idea that social justice, sustainability, and non-violence (etc, etc) relies upon a common understanding and that issues such as global warming do not stop at the border. There is also a strong understanding that we need to democratize global institutions, while decentralizing power except where necessity dictates it. The "Green Party's" around the world function as autonomous organizations, but we realize that having a common name and common set of values is the most effective way to build on our successes as well as provides us with a mutual framework for working within our governments to solve similar problems.
Our party welcomes dissent, but we do need to have some basis of unity so that we can resolve the fact that we have people from diverse backgrounds and with various viewpoints who may not always agree.
However, if someone vehemently and vocally disagrees with our core values, and our position as part of a global (decentralized) network, then there is a legitimate question to why they have joined the party. This does not mean they are not welcome, but they should accept that many other members treat these values (and the global network) as the core reasons which they joined the party.
You are not born into the Green Party, and ones decision to join is voluntary. We must uphold our constitution, even if we have the opportunity to change it if we feel it is necessary.
Your analogy has problems----
Dan:
Your analogy has flaws.
First of all, I'm not sure that it is immediately obvious that the Constitutional approach to our rights and freedoms is the best way to deal with various social problems. One of the "rights" that I would like to see in our society is a the right to a speedy, fair and affordable trial. Yet one of the unforseen consequences of our new Charter is that the trials take forever now and legal fees have made trials extremely onerous for all but the very rich. As well, the political parties now simply ignore political hot-potatoes (iike abortion) and hope that the Supreme Court will take care of them. I'm not sure that this is an improvement.
Secondly, unlike our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have no equavalent body that we can appeal to in order to ensure that the Party and its policy are in sync with the stated values of the party. I have complained for years about the profoundly undemocratic nature of this party's internal decision-making processes, yet there is no body that I can approach to deal with the issue. A Charter without some sort of appeals body is worse than having no Charter at all, because it means that people can use it to support the status quo without having to justify where they breach it in practise.
Personally, I think that it is better to have unwritten Constitutions, or at least put sunset clauses on them so they can be revisited from time to time to make sure that they don't become albatrosses rotting around the neck of the membership.
Global Greens 2
If our platform was simply the what you've included here, we would never elect a single MP. It effectively describes a system where a country that refuses to control its population would be rewarded with increasing wealth transferred from other countries.
Sadly, the statement, "We acknowledge the wisdom of the indigenous peoples of the world, as custodians of the land and its resources," sounds nice, but is extremely racist. Since I know you disagree, try changing the word "indigenous" to "white" and "world" to "Europe", because that's partly what it means.